414 lines
24 KiB
HTML
414 lines
24 KiB
HTML
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
|
|
<html>
|
|
<version>1</version>
|
|
|
|
<head>
|
|
<title>FSFE's answers to the European Commission's Public Consultation:
|
|
Revision of the European Interoperability Framework</title>
|
|
|
|
</head>
|
|
|
|
<body class="article" microformats="h-entry">
|
|
|
|
<p id="category"><a href="/freesoftware/standards/standards.html">Open Standards</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<h1 id="comments-on-the-revision-of-the-european-interoperability-framework">Comments on
|
|
the revision of the European Interoperability Framework</h1>
|
|
|
|
<h2 id="introduction">Introduction</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>The Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) welcomes the European
|
|
Commission's initiative to update its European Interoperability Framework
|
|
(EIF) in order to abolish existing digital barriers between the interaction
|
|
of citizens and businesses with public administrations across all member
|
|
states.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Interoperability between administrations, citizens and businesses is a
|
|
prerequisite to a more efficient and effective delivery of digital public
|
|
services, as stated in the draft revision of the EIF (February 2016),
|
|
however it has to be acknowledged that interoperability is only a mean
|
|
to its end and not as an end by itself. Hence, <strong>the purpose the
|
|
revised EIF has to serve is enshrined in the founding treaties of the
|
|
European Union: the free movement of goods, people, services, and capital;
|
|
free competition; and protection of fundamental rights and freedoms</strong>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h2 id="the-purpose-and-legal-framework-of-the-eif">The purpose and legal
|
|
framework of the EIF</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>According to the <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/files/57b2ecd5-effa-4594-9ef2-47e7ecc67047">current
|
|
draft revision of the EIF</a>, the purpose of interoperability framework
|
|
is to provide guidance and a set of common core concepts for the design
|
|
and update of national interoperability frameworks, policies, strategies,
|
|
guidelines and other documents promoting interoperability on national level.
|
|
The review of the EIF, according to the Commission, is deemed necessary
|
|
in order to "<em>put more focus on the implementation</em> [emphasis added]
|
|
of the EIF rather than the simple alignment with the national approaches
|
|
on interoperability."</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Hereby, it is important to stress that while the EIF has to set a good
|
|
example for a more efficient use of public services, it cannot hamper the
|
|
successful national frameworks (NIF) that already exist and function.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Such favourable examples, include the Government ICT Strategy (2011) in
|
|
the UK, or NIF in Estonia (Estonian Interoperability Framework), Denmark
|
|
(an agreement between the government and the regions and municipalities
|
|
to use open standards in order to secure interoperability), and Sweden
|
|
(Framework agreements that promote procurement of open standards and
|
|
Free Software). According to the KMPG study for the European Commission
|
|
about "State of Play of Interoperability in Europe - Report 2014"
|
|
(hereinafter, the Report) these countries have also been reported as the
|
|
leaders on interoperability in the EU<a class="fn" id="fnref1" href="#fn1">1</a>.
|
|
<strong>The explicit promotion of open standards and Free Software has
|
|
been indicated as one of the factors of enhanced interoperability</strong>
|
|
in the aforementioned countries. The way these member states have chosen
|
|
to ensure their interoperability to citizens and businesses should be set
|
|
as a positive example.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The draft revision of the EIF does not clearly indicate the relationship
|
|
between the revised EIF and the NIF. The purpose of the EIF, as stated
|
|
above, is to focus on the implementation of the EIF across member states,
|
|
however, the draft gives another contradictory explanation about this
|
|
interrelation: NIF have to developed in an aligned way with the EIF while
|
|
providing the necessary flexibility to address specific requirements.
|
|
It is unclear how such flexibility is intended to be guaranteed.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>As 'interoperability' per se is not a value or a principle that is
|
|
codified through the EU founding treaties, the delivery of better public
|
|
services that foster competition, respect privacy and follow the principle
|
|
of non-discrimination does not end when the national public administrations
|
|
align their NIF with the EIF. There is always room for improvement on
|
|
both national and EU level, and the delivery of better public services
|
|
that are interoperable and reusable cannot be perceived in a legal vacuum.
|
|
National standardisation policies, procurement frameworks, and standardisation
|
|
strategies should complement the efforts, although it is out of scope of
|
|
the revised EIF.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently, there exists a <strong>substantial disparity</strong> between
|
|
the level of interoperability. While some countries are advanced in
|
|
delivering interoperable digital services, others are struggling to unify
|
|
their regulations in order to align with EIF (for more information see,
|
|
the Report).</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote><p><strong>Recommendation:</strong></p><p>In order to overcome national disparities,
|
|
the revised EIF needs to be clear and concise, include the best practices
|
|
amongst the member states that helped the latter to deliver, while bearing
|
|
in mind the overarching EU values such as free competition and non-discrimination
|
|
irrespective from one's nationality or a business model.</p></blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<h2 id="underlying-principles-of-european-public-services">Underlying principles
|
|
of European Public Services</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>The FSFE welcomes the expansion of core principles identified in the
|
|
draft revision, especially in regard to the principles of user-centricity,
|
|
and effectiveness and efficiency. However, the previous EIF v.2 included
|
|
the separate principle of "Openness" which in the draft revision has lost
|
|
its initial meaning and is equated to transparency.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>It is important to stress, that <strong>the idea of "openness" of solutions,
|
|
technical specifications, and implementations is a prerequisite not only
|
|
for interoperability but is crucial for the idea of technological neutrality,
|
|
user-centricity, and reusability</strong>. It is a principle of not only
|
|
transparent decision-making but also a key enabler for collaboration and
|
|
avoidance of vendor lock-in.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>In EIF v.2, the principle of openness was inter alia defined as
|
|
"<em>the willingness of persons, organisations or other members of a
|
|
community of interest to share knowledge and stimulate debate within
|
|
that community</em>", with the ultimate goal of problem-solving.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>This principle is closely linked to Free Software (also known as
|
|
"open source") which development and distribution system is inherently
|
|
based on the principle of openness: the willingness of persons, organisations
|
|
and businesses to share knowledge, solutions, and tools. The core of
|
|
Free Software is enshrined in four freedoms it grants: to use the software,
|
|
to share it with others, to study its source code, and to modify the software
|
|
according to one's needs.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Consequently, <strong>without Free Software and its underlying principle
|
|
of openness it is impossible to create fully reusable, secure and privacy-respecting
|
|
solutions</strong>. Free Software enables software distribution and use
|
|
without any restrictions. Due to this network effect, the use of standards
|
|
is spurred which in return results in significantly better interoperability.
|
|
The accessibility of the source code and the design information as well
|
|
as the rights to modify, onward develop and distribute Free Software
|
|
support reusability of good implementations. Hence, the overarching idea
|
|
of "openness" is an important principle for better interoperability.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The way the principle of "openness" is handled in the draft revision,
|
|
only refers to the question of "open data" and the transparency of
|
|
administrative decision-making. While it is important to ensure that the
|
|
citizens and companies are present in the decision-making over the quality
|
|
of public services, and to be able to access information stored about
|
|
them, it is not clear why the idea of collaborative knowledge-sharing
|
|
has been abandoned from the core principles the member states have to
|
|
comply with. Especially without any significant relevant additions
|
|
throughout the whole draft revision.</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote><p><strong>Recommendation:</strong></p><p>The FSFE, therefore, encourages the Commission
|
|
to reintroduce the principle of openness for the reuse of technical
|
|
solutions in the EIF as the core principle.</p></blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<h2 id="the-conceptual-model-for-integrated-public-services">The
|
|
conceptual model for integrated public services provision</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>While it is important to ensure the accessibility of information and
|
|
services in interoperable formats, it is necessary to not limit such
|
|
principles to solely information and services. The draft revision is
|
|
inconsistent in its reference to "information", "services" and interoperable
|
|
"solutions". The latter is often referring to software, an essential
|
|
building block for technical interoperability. The technical interoperability
|
|
can be perceived as the most significant layer to the digitisation of the
|
|
European public services and its importance should not be underestimated.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Consequently, the conceptual model for integrated public services
|
|
(i.e. chapter 3 in the draft revision) should not only include the reusability
|
|
of "data and services" but have to include the reusability of technical
|
|
solutions in order to encompass all layers of interoperability. The conceptual
|
|
model, therefore, needs to acknowledge the importance of technical
|
|
interoperability and refer to such interoperability in an apparent way.
|
|
While the draft text acknowledges the importance of shared infrastructure
|
|
of "reusable building blocks", it is not very clear from the text if the
|
|
aforementioned building blocks include technical solutions, e.g. software.
|
|
As such, the conceptual model for integrated public services provision
|
|
cannot be complete without the proper attention to the all interoperability
|
|
layers identified in the draft revision.</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote><p><strong>Recommendation:</strong></p><p>In this regard, the Basic Components identified
|
|
in the chapter 3.3 of the draft revision, should in addition to the
|
|
reuse of data and services, <strong>include the reusability of technical
|
|
solutions in a clear and apparent way, in order to avoid duplication of
|
|
effort, extra costs and further interoperability problems</strong>,
|
|
bearing in mind the principle of openness, and avoidance of lock-in.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Hereby, it is important to ensure that no specific proprietary and
|
|
closed technical tools should be promoted in order to achieve the desired
|
|
"interoperability-by-design", but the reusability and the flexibility of
|
|
technical solutions that are open, sustainable, transparent and provided
|
|
under Free Software licences</p></blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<h2 id="interoperability-layers">Interoperability layers</h2>
|
|
|
|
<h3 id="reference-architectures">Reference architectures</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>The draft revision identifies the importance of standards and specifications
|
|
in promoting interoperability, and in regard to their catalouging refers
|
|
to the European Interoperability Reference Architecture (EIRA) that
|
|
"should be used to define conceptual reference building blocks". While
|
|
it is important to promote certain tools in order to achieve the widest
|
|
interoperability across the member state, it is essential to recognise
|
|
other models of reference that in essence will contribute to the implementation
|
|
of desired "interoperability-by-design".</p>
|
|
|
|
<h4 id="open-specifications">Open specifications</h4>
|
|
|
|
<p>The FSFE welcomes the priority the draft revision is giving to the
|
|
open specifications in European Public Services. However, <strong>when
|
|
it comes to the technical interoperability and the reusability of technical
|
|
solutions, i.e. software, it is important to not only promote open
|
|
specifications but to allow software to act as a reference implementation
|
|
in order to achieve better interoperability.</strong> The latter can only
|
|
be achieved by publishing such software as Free Software.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Free Software is defined through the four rights it grants to its users:
|
|
to use, study, share, and improve the software. Instead of developing
|
|
lengthy specifications to the standard and expecting stakeholders to
|
|
find their ways to implement it, it is more efficient to publish the
|
|
source code and let everyone to copy and reshape the technology according
|
|
to their specific needs.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>This is particularly important because for most software standards
|
|
the formal specification is insufficient, and the actual standard is
|
|
defined both through the written specification and actual implementations.
|
|
For the implementer the reference implementation is more valuable because
|
|
it allows her to avoid the extended phase of trial-and-error in order to
|
|
resolve specification ambiguities.</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote><p><strong>Recommendation:</strong></p><p>Reference implementation published under Free
|
|
Software licence may act as the formal specification without the
|
|
institutional standard setting process and can be reproduced by any
|
|
potential service provider. Therefore, allowing technology to be implemented
|
|
directly will result in avoidance of duplicating standards in order for
|
|
technology to be applied. Hence, reference implementation under a Free
|
|
Software licence will avoid unnecessary duplications, while at the same
|
|
encourage competition and enhance interoperability.</p></blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<h4 id="frand">FRAND</h4>
|
|
|
|
<p>The FSFE wants draw the Commission's attention to the contradiction
|
|
between the interoperability goals it sets and its position in regard to
|
|
acceptable licensing terms of open specifications on so-called FRAND
|
|
("fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory") terms. According to the
|
|
Commission, "this fosters competition since providers working under
|
|
various business models may compete to deliver products, technologies
|
|
and services based on such specifications".</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>It is necessary to understand that FRAND do not solely refer to the
|
|
royalty-bearing conditions that are incompatible with Free Software.
|
|
The problem of FRAND and Free Software cannot be eliminated by the formula
|
|
of "FRAND and/or royalty-free" licensing terms, as it has been proposed
|
|
in the draft revision.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>FRAND are harmful towards Free Software in numerous ways<a class="fn" id="fnref2" href="#fn2">2</a>:
|
|
it goes against the core idea of Free Software which is based on open
|
|
collaborative space of innovation and knowledge-sharing. The fact that
|
|
FRAND terms create barriers for Free Software projects to implement the
|
|
technical specification, has amongst others been also acknowledged by
|
|
the European Commission.<a class="fn" id="fnref3" href="#fn3">3</a> In
|
|
this regard it is surprising to see the contradictory statement in the
|
|
draft revision stating the opposite.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>As stated previously, Free Software licences create the open space
|
|
for collaboration by delivering four freedoms to everyone in a clear,
|
|
certain and nonnegotiable way. They treat every user as a potential
|
|
developer or distributor of the software, by allowing everyone to use it,
|
|
study how it works, share it with others, and improve it according to
|
|
one's needs. FRAND, on the other hand, neutralises such collaborative
|
|
environment as it impedes the freedoms granted by Free Software.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Notably, there is no consensus on what 'actually' constitutes FRAND,
|
|
as in "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" terms. The terms are
|
|
usually negotiated and kept secret. The licence granted is non-transferable
|
|
and requires each implementer to seek an individual licence every time
|
|
the technology is to be re-used. <strong>As such, in addition to excluding
|
|
the whole Free Software sector from implementing technical specifications
|
|
FRAND licensing terms go against most of the core principles highlighted
|
|
in the draft revision.</strong></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>In particular:
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><strong>Transparency and openness</strong> - by being negotiated in secret;</li>
|
|
|
|
<li><strong>Reusability</strong> - by hampering the idea of sharing with others their
|
|
interoperability solutions, concepts, frameworks, specifications, tools
|
|
and components, with its strict terms of acquiring an individual licence
|
|
for every re-use of the standard;</li>
|
|
|
|
<li><strong>Technological neutrality</strong> - by excluding the whole Free Software
|
|
sector from standardisation processes that consequently will result in a
|
|
bigger vendor lock-in. Additionally, open standards and Free Software
|
|
are seen as the most common counter-measure to the wide vendor lock-in
|
|
in the EU public sector<a class="fn" id="fnref4" href="#fn4">4</a>;</li>
|
|
|
|
<li><strong>Efficiency and effectiveness</strong> - by creating unnecessary burdens to all
|
|
stakeholders involved in bringing the better interoperability.</li></ul></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>In a recent FAQ<a class="fn" id="fnref5" href="#fn5">5</a>, the Commission
|
|
stated:</p>
|
|
|
|
<p><em>"The Commission does not prescribe business models in the market, be
|
|
they built on open source, or on for-money licensing arrangements"</em></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>But business models are no longer the issue at hand, as the emerging
|
|
maturity of the Free Software (aka Open Source) market has shown.
|
|
By permitting FRAND arrangements for standard-essential patents (SEPs)
|
|
within the software market, the Commission is proscribing development
|
|
models based on Free Software by ensuring that implementation of certain
|
|
standards will always be disadvantageous for those choosing this approach.
|
|
This implicit proscription unreasonably advantages large multinationals
|
|
with substantial patent portfolios and restricts both market entry and
|
|
innovation by the smaller players inherent in most of the European market.
|
|
It allows dominant players from established markets where monetisation of
|
|
SEPs is the norm to unreasonably gain advantage in the internet software
|
|
market where restriction-free collaboration is the norm. In a word, it
|
|
encourages anti-trust.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>In addition, it is important to highlight the recent
|
|
Statement by the the United Kingdom, Estonia, Belgium, Slovenia, Poland,
|
|
Latvia and Malta regarding the Council conclusions on the "Digital Single
|
|
Market Technologies and Public Services Modernisation" package that
|
|
focuses on the importance of the creation of Open Standards in regard to
|
|
software. The aforementioned member states ask the Commission to
|
|
"<em>acknowledge all appropriate open, transparent and broad consensus-based
|
|
models of standardisation used by industries across the Information
|
|
Technology and the Electronic Communications Technology sectors</em>".
|
|
According to the member states, only this will "<em>enable EU companies to
|
|
compete in local, regional and global markets on equal terms, where their
|
|
innovative solutions can create new markets and jobs</em>".<a class="fn" id="fnref6" href="#fn6">6</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>It is notable that several member states issuing this statement, are
|
|
the most advanced in delivering the interoperable services and solutions
|
|
to their businesses and citizens (e.g. according to the Report, Estonia's
|
|
NIF is one of the most mature in the EU, with the EIF alignment score of
|
|
100%), and as such, their concerns need to be heard. Additionally, the
|
|
majority of these countries have a strong preference towards Open Standards
|
|
and Free Software in their national NIF which is a hard proof of the
|
|
positive interrelation between two.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote><p><strong>Recommendation:</strong></p><p>It is absolutely
|
|
essential to ensure that no unnecessary and disproportionate barriers are
|
|
created on the EU level, including by harmful FRAND licensing.</p></blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<h2 id="conclusion">Conclusion</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>In conclusion, the draft revision lacks the understanding of national
|
|
success stories, and of the barriers some of its points can create to
|
|
achieve better interoperability that in the end will result in even more
|
|
disparities between member states.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>In particular, while the draft promotes "open specifications", the
|
|
harmonised use of certain models and tools (e.g. EIRA), it can hamper
|
|
its core principles with the inclusion of FRAND licensing terms, and
|
|
abandoning the principle of "openness": the idea of collaborative efforts
|
|
and a common innovative space.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>It also completely disregards the obvious correlation between strong
|
|
promotion of Free Software and higher interoperability which is evident
|
|
from several NIF across Europe</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>In order to overcome these shortcomings, the EIF needs to learn from
|
|
the best and promote solutions that have been proved successful. In particular:
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>The promotion of open specifications cannot be hampered by FRAND
|
|
licensing terms;</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>The idea of openness, as in collaborative innovation, should be
|
|
reintroduced as the core principle of the EIF;</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>Free Software which is a key enabler of interoperability need to be
|
|
acknowledged and promoted at least as a reference implementation of
|
|
technical standards.</li></ul>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<h2 id="fn">Footnotes</h2>
|
|
<ol>
|
|
<li id="fn1">Roberto Gatti et al., <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/isa/documents/publications/2014-report-on-state-of-play-of-interoperability.pdf">State of Play of Interoperability in Europe - Report 2014"</a>, A study prepared for the European Commission, 2015. <a href="#fnref1">↩</a></li>
|
|
<li id="fn2">See <a href="/freesoftware/standards/why-frand-is-bad-for-free-software.html">FSFE's analysis on FRAND</a>.<a href="#fnref2">↩</a></li>
|
|
<li id="fn3">European Commission, Staff Working Document <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/guide-procurement-standards-based-ict-%E2%80%94-elements-good-practice">"Guide for the procurement of standards-based ICT — Elements of Good Practice"</a>, SWD(2013) 224 final, 25/06/2013. <a href="#fnref3">↩</a></li>
|
|
<li id="fn4">Giovanna Galasso et al., <a href="http://slord.sk/buxus/docs/aktuality/StudyonbestpracticesforICTprocurementbasedonstandardsinordertopromoteefficiencyandreducelock-in.pdf">"Study on best practices for ICT procurement based on standards in order to promote efficiency and reduce lock-in"</a>. A study prepared for the European Commission DG Communications Networks, Content & Technology, 2016.<a href="#fnref4">↩</a></li>
|
|
<li id="fn5">European Commission - Fact Sheet on <a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-1963_en.htm">"Commission takes steps to modernise EU's standardisation policy"</a>, 1/06/2016. <a href="#fnref5">↩</a></li>
|
|
<li id="fn6">Permanent Representatives Committee (Part 1), <a href="http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8735-2016-ADD-1/en/pdf">Draft Council conclusions on the "Digital Single Market Technologies and Public Services Modernisation" package - Statement by the United Kingdom, Estonia, Belgium, Slovenia, Poland, Latvia and Malta</a>, 8735/16 ADD 1, 26/05/2016.<a href="#fnref6">↩</a></li>
|
|
</ol>
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
</body>
|
|
|
|
<sidebar promo="open-standards">
|
|
<h2>Table of Contents</h2>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a href="#introduction">Introduction</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#the-purpose-and-legal-framework-of-the-eif">The purpose and legal framework of the EIF</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#underlying-principles-of-european-public-services">Underlying principles of European Public Services</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#the-conceptual-model-for-integrated-public-services">The conceptual model for integrated public services provision</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#interoperability-layers">Interoperability layers</a></li>
|
|
<li style="padding-left:10px;"><a href="#reference-architectures">Reference Architectures</a></li>
|
|
<li style="padding-left:20px;"><a href="#open-specifications">Open specifications</a></li>
|
|
<li style="padding-left:20px;"><a href="#frand">FRAND</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#conclusion">Conclusion</a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
<h2>Related links</h2>
|
|
<a href="https://download.fsfe.org/policy/letters/20151029-fsfe-dsm-comments.pdf">Comments on the Digital Single Market strategy (pdf)</a>
|
|
</sidebar>
|
|
|
|
<tags>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<tag key="policy">Policy</tag>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</tags>
|
|
|
|
</html>
|